this report is the product of a joint effort by state and national … · 2011. 8. 3. ·...

This report is the product of a joint effort by state and national groupscommitted to protecting the clean air laws that protect public health.

TexasSustainable Energy andEconomic Development

(SEED) Coalitionwww.seedcoalition.org

Blue Skies Alliancewww.dfwdirtyair.com

Refinery Reform Campaignwww.refineryreform.org

LouisianaLouisiana Bucket Brigadewww.labucketbrigade.org

OklahomaEnvironmental Awareness

Group

Washington, DCClean Air Trust

www.cleanairtrust.org

Peter Altman of the SEED Coalition wrote this reportwith substantial contributions by Frank O’Donnell of the Clean Air Trust.

Katy Hubener of the Blue Skies Alliance, Anne Rolfes of the Louisiana Bucket Brigade,John Hartman of the Environmental Awareness Group, Karen Hadden of the SEED Coalition

and the Clean Air Task Force also contributed to this report.

Copyright March, 2002

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ………………………………………………………………1

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………2

Big Polluters Shower the Sooty Six with Contributions …………………………3

Dirty Air Records …………………………………………………………………4

Sooty Six Member RecordsThe Filthy FourCongressman Joe Barton ……………………………………………….6Congressman Tom DeLay ……………..………………………………9Senator James Inhofe ……………………………………………………11Congressman Billy Tauzin ………………………………………………15

Senator John Cornyn …………………………………………………….17Congressman Ralph Hall …….………………………………………….19

Brief Background on the Sooty Six ………………………………………………22

Who Suffers from Dirty Air? Portrait of a Pollution Victim ……………………25

Our Clean Air and Climate are at Stake ………………………….………………27

How the Bush Administration’s Power Plant Bill Smokes the Clean Air Act …29

How the Bush Administration’s New Source Review Rules Roll Back the CAA ………………………………30

Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………32

Executive SummaryAt a time when our nation’s clean air laws are under the most serious attack in over tenyears, Congressional positions with enormous impact on clean air policy are occupied byMembers of Congress whose dirty air records are just as long as their list of contributors.

Three members – Senator James Inhofe, Representatives Billy Tauzin and Joe Barton – arenow running committees through which any legislation affecting air pollution, energypolicy or global warming must pass. Inhofe chairs the Senate Environment and PublicWorks Committee, Tauzin chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee and Bartonchairs the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.

In addition, Tom DeLay’s election as House Majority Leader puts him in a strong positionto affect legislation.

Together, we call these members the Filthy Four. Each of these members far outstrips theaverage member of Congress in campaign contributions from the industries that benefitfrom efforts to weaken and rollback clean air laws. Their home states of Texas, Louisianaand Oklahoma have been dubbed the Toxic Triangle, a reference both to the records ofthese representatives as well as the high pollution levels from the states, particularly Texasand Louisiana.

In addition, newly elected Senator John Cornyn and long-time House memberRepresentative Ralph Hall also have poor environmental records and serve on the Senateand House committees overseeing environmental legislation. With Cornyn and Hall in themix, we have the Sooty Six.

These individuals are in positions of influence at a time when critical clean air and energyissues are being debated and are likely to be acted on. The three particular issues in playare:

1. Power plant pollution – President Bush’s plan on air pollution has been introducedby some of the Filthy Four. The plan hurts public health, helps big polluters andmakes global warming worse. It would allow power plants to emit more pollutionthan the Clean Air Act, and also rolls back key provisions of New Source Review(NSR) for power plants.

2. New Source Review – in addition to the attacks on NSR in the Bush plan for powerplants, a separate and more comprehensive rollback is being implemented througha regulatory reinterpretation of NSR signed by Christie Whitman on January 1st.This rollback weakens clean air protections at all kinds of industries, most notablepower plants and refineries.

3. Global warming – the administration has ignored global warming in its power plantplan but has called for voluntary greenhouse gas actions with a plan that wouldactually increase greenhouse gas concentrations.

Most Americans are unaware that a small band of Congressmen, extraordinarily wellfunded by polluters, are in position to push these dirty air proposals forward and shut outattempts to make real progress in cleaning up our air and cooling down our climate.

IntroductionCommittee chairmanships in Congress are prized positions because of the power andinfluence they convey. With the power to set agendas, hearings and meetings, committeechairmen can move or kill bills as well as influence their content and end results.

With little notice from the media and general public, enormous influence over our nation’senvironmental laws has become concentrated in the hands of four devoutly anti-environmental members from the nation’s Toxic Triangle – Oklahoma, Texas andLouisiana.

The constituents of these Congressmen live in virtual war zones of pollution, where oftenasthma is epidemic, rare cancers are commonplace and children suffer the known healtheffects of rampant air pollution. Though Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma have notoriousreputations for pollution, their Congressmen have been handed the reigns on our nationalclean air policy. Do Americans want to follow the blueprint set by these states?

In the Senate, James Inhofe of Oklahoma chairs the Environment and Public WorksCommittee. Inhofe has a long record of blatantly anti-environmental initiatives and hasreferred to the EPA as a “Gestapo” bureaucracy.

Representative Joe Barton, dubbed the Darth Vader of clean air or Smokey Joe by criticsincluding the Dallas Morning News, chairs the House Commerce Energy and Air QualitySubcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.

In the House, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, a former pest exterminator, has beenelevated to the role of House Majority Leader. DeLay has expressed with passion hishatred for the EPA and has led efforts to completely gut the agency and environmentallaws.

Representative Billy Tauzin of Louisiana is chairman of the House Energy and CommerceCommittee. He has a consistently bad record on environmental issues, and carries a “zero”voting score from the League of Conservation Voters.

In addition, Senator John Cornyn and Representative Ralph Hall, both from Texas, havedirty records on air pollution – though they have not vociferously attacked environmentallaws in the past as have the Filthy Four. But Cornyn, who was appointed to Inhofe’sEnvironment and Public Works Committee, and Hall, who sits on Barton’s Energy and AirQuality Subcommittee, are in positions where their votes and stands on clean air issuesmatter a great deal.

Together, these Sooty Six lawmakers wield enormous influence over our nation’s clean airlaws.

Big Polluters Shower the Sooty Six with ContributionsEach of these members is among the top recipients of campaign funds from industries thatbenefit the most from weak clean air laws and outright rollbacks.

Each of these members has been a top-fundraiser from the industries that benefit the mostfrom weak clean air laws and outright rollbacks.

In general, there are two different “contributions” numbers found in this report. Mostfrequently used, and nearly always higher, are figures that comprise contributions made tothe congress members’ candidate committees, federal leadership PACs, non-federalleadership PACs and other associated Section 527 organizations. They includecontributions from individuals, PACs and corporate treasuries.

In cases where we have compared a member’s fundraising to the average of Senate orHouse members, the figures only include contributions to candidate committees, as theseare the only ones for which averages are available. As a result, figures used to compareindividual member’s fundraising to the Senate or House averages are smaller than thetotals provided elsewhere.

Throughout the report, we indicate contributions from companies to candidates. Thesefigures include contributions coming from the company’s PACs as well as employees,families, lobbyists, and other sources connected to that company.

The Sooty SixAll six members in this study - the Sooty Six – raised $3,029,900 from the oil and gas,electric utilities, chemical and related manufacturing, mining, auto and steel industries inthe 2000 and 2002 election cycles.

Summary of Contributions to the Sooty Six by Industry, 2000 and 2002 election cyclesChemical

& Related Mfg

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas)

$217,498 $254,825 $40,040 $16,000 $16,500 $17,500 $562,363

Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas)

$166,650 $92,550 $65,469 $31,000 $19,000 $9,250 $383,919

Rep. Ralph Hall (D-Texas)

$89,402 $155,235 $21,000 $6,500 $3,500 $3,000 $278,637

Rep. W.J. “Billy” Tauzin (R-La.)

$198,384 $194,590 $60,791 $32,545 $17,500 $2,500 $506,310

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)

$467,072 $97,860 $73,360 $60,850 $12,000 $26,800 $737,942

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.)

$273,006 $167,463 $36,560 $60,350 $13,500 $9,850 $560,729

Totals $1,412,008 $962,518 $297,217 $207,239 $81,998 $68,898 $3,029,900

House Avg, '00-'02

$29,661 $31,494 $11,417 $10,561 $8,306 $6,164

Senate Avg, '00-'02

$62,497 $57,422 $22,623 $32,115 $15,195 $9,683

Senate Avg, '02 $29,181 $31,814 $9,667 $17,564 $6,245 $4,661

TotalAuto Manufact-

urers

Steel Production

Recipient Oil & Gas Electric Utilities

Mining

The Filthy FourThe Filthy Four - Inhofe, DeLay, Barton and Tauzin - are so named because of theirelevated role in attacking the Clean Air Act and long histories of doing so. In the 2000 and2002 election cycles, their candidate committees took in $2,013,321 from the oil and gas,electric utilities, chemical and related manufacturing, mining, auto and steel industries.These industries gave the Filthy Four nearly three and a half times what they gave thecandidate committees of House and Senate members, who got a combined average of$148,569.

The difference between the Filthy Four and the average member of Congress is even moreextraordinary when just the oil and gas and utility industries are considered. The FilthyFour’s candidate committees picked up an average of $213,885 from the oil and gasindustry while the average member’s candidate committee got $46,079 – or 4.6 times theaverage.

From the utility industry the Filthy Four’s candidate committees picked up $177,357, fourtimes the average of $44,458 collected by the average House or Senate member’scandidate committee.

Individual Highlights (figures reflect donations to candidate committees only)

• Representative Joe Barton received $254,825 from the electric utility sector in the 2000and 2002 cycles, more than eight times the average House member who got $31,494.

o Barton also stands out for raising $217,498 from the oil and gas industry, 7.3times the average House member who raised $29,661 in the 2000 and 2002cycles.

• Representative Tom DeLay has the record among the Sooty Six for raising the mostmoney from a single company - Enron, which gave him $160,900.

o DeLay also raised $65,469 from the chemical and manufacturing industry,which is 5.73 times the House average for the 2000 and 2002 election cycles.

• Senator James Inhofe raised $167,463 from the utility industry in the 2000 and 2002election cycles, beating the Senate average for that period by 5.32 times.

• Representative Billy Tauzin was a steady fundraiser across the oil and gas, utility andchemical sectors in the 2000 and 2002 election cycles.

o Tauzin raised $198,384 from the oil and gas sector, 6.69 times the Houseaverage.

o Tauzin raised $194,590 from the utility sector, 6.18 times the House average.o Tauzin raised $60,791 from the chemical sector, 5.32 times the House average.

• Senator John Cornyn was the top recipient of oil and gas contributions among allSenate candidates in 2002 with $467,072 raised – more than 16 times the Senate’saverage of $29,181 for that cycle.

o Cornyn also got the most contributions of any of the Sooty Six, with $737,942from the industries studied.

• Representative Ralph Hall outpaced most House members in fundraising from theutility industry, collecting $155,235 in the 2000 and 2002 election cycles, nearly 5times the House average.

Dirty Air RecordsWith such strong support from polluting industries, these members of Congress have hadvirtually free reign to attack a variety of clean air laws with few if any negativeconsequences.

Since 1995, these six members have committed 50 serious dirty air actions, either bycasting votes or introducing anti-environmental legislation. Tom DeLay is the mostnotable for “extra-curricular” activities against air quality, including blocking federalmatching funds for Houston’s light rail after voters passed a local bond package to buildsuch a system. Smokey Joe Barton runs a close second to DeLay. In his spare time Bartonworks on side projects including overhauling the Clean Air Act to legalize extending dirtyair for the Dallas/Ft. Worth metroplex in favor of the cement industry.

The summary pages that follow provide specific details on legislative actions committedby each Sooty Six member that is detrimental to air quality. Each summary also listscontribution totals by industry studied as well as contributions from individual companies.

Congressman Joe Barton

Total Contributions from Select Industries, 2000 and 2002 Election Cycle

“It’s a global plot against the economic stability ofthe United States which will deprive us of ourrights to liberty, prosperity, efficiency, andeconomic security.”

Joe Barton on international effortsto reduce global warming emissions,

in a meeting with clean air advocates.

Chemical& Related Mfg

Barton $217,498 $254,825 $40,040 $16,000 $16,500 $17,500

Avg House Member

$29,661 $31,494 $11,417 $10,561 $8,306 $6,164

Auto Manufact-urers

Steel Production


Mining

Top Contributors, Energy and Manufacturing2000/2002 Election Cycle - Rep. Joe Barton

Contributor Amount

Lyondell Chemical $40,223 Reliant Energy $34,593

Southern Co $33,000 TXU $28,150 Entergy $24,527 Anadarko Petroleum $24,500 Exelon Corp $21,000 El Paso Corp $19,750 Valero Energy Corp $19,500 Dynegy $17,300 Duke Energy $17,000 General Electric $17,000 Edison Electric Institute $16,949 TXI $16,000 Midamerican Energy $13,250 CMS Energy Corp $12,500 Edison International $12,000 First Energy Corp $11,500 Cemex Inc. $10,500 Electric Power Supply Assn $10,078 Enron $10,000

Note: The “Total Contributions from Select Industry”figures only reflect contributions to the candidatecommittee.

The “Top Contributors, Energy and Manufacturing” figurescomprise contributions made to the candidate committee,federal leadership PACs, non-federal leadership PACs andother associated Section 527 organizations. They includecontributions from individuals, PACs and corporatetreasuries, when allowed.

Source: Federal Election Commission records downloadedFebruary 19, 2003; examination of IRS Form 8872s filedby Section 527 groups.

Dirty Air Record of Representative Joe Barton (R-TX),Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee

on Energy and Air Quality

2003Action Who Wanted It / Would Profit?

Introduced President’s Plan for Air Pollution,euphemistically called “Clear Skies Initiative. - February 27, 2003.

Electric power industry, coal mining industry.


At the request of the Bush Administration,introduced H.R. 5266, which would repeal manykey elements of the Clean Air Act and replacethem with an industry-friendly cap-and-tradesystem.



Voted on House floor against amendment byRep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) and EdwardMarkey (D-MA) that would have increased fueleconomy standards. August 1, 2001.

Oil industry, “Big Three” car companies, truckingcompanies, the highway builder lobby (asphaltand cement industries, etc.)

Sponsored H. R. 1647, which would havepermitted EPA to waive Clean Air Act standardsfor new electric power plants, and would havepermitted a governor to waive Clean Air Actemission limits on “any high electricityemergency day.”

Electric power industry, electricity traders.


Voted on House floor against giving Americansthe right to know if they live in areas that violateEPA’s new public health standards for smog.June 21, 2000.

Coal-burning electric power industry, coal miningindustry, oil industry, pulp and paper industry,chemical industry, auto industry, NationalAssociation of Manufacturers.

Dirty Air Record of Representative Joe Barton (R-TX), continued


Voted on House floor against amendment byRep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) that would haverequired open debate and separate votes on anti-clean air and other anti-environmental “riders”attached to funding legislation. February 10,1999.

Coal-burning electric power industry, coal miningindustry, oil industry, pulp and paper industry,chemical industry, auto industry, NationalAssociation of Manufacturers.

Co-sponsored H.R. 1876, which would haveoverturned a court ruling that said EPA hadimproperly permitted highway building thatinterfered with state air quality cleanup plans.

Oil industry, highway building lobby (asphalt andcement industries, etc.)


Voted on House floor to try to “gag” EPA fromconducting educational programs or informationalseminars on global warming. July 23, 1998.

Electric power industry, coal mining industry,concrete and cement industry.

Voted on House floor to maintain budget ridersthat delayed the cleanup of mercury from electricpower plants and interfered with EPA’s efforts toclean the air in national parks. July 23, 1998.

Electric power industry, coal mining industry,concrete and cement industry.


Co-sponsored H.R. 1984, which would haverepealed EPA’s tougher new air qualitystandards for smog and soot.

Coal-burning electric power industry, coal miningindustry, concrete and cement industry, oilindustry, pulp and paper industry, chemicalindustry, auto industry, trucking industry, NationalAssociation of Manufacturers.


Introduced H.R. 3519, which would have guttedthe Clean Air Act. Among its provisions, it wouldhave replaced enforceable air quality standardswith “goals”; it would have blocked EPA fromsetting health-based air quality standards thatfailed a cost-benefit test; and it would havedeclared bad smog days legal during warmweather!

Oil industry, chemical industry, electric powerindustry, cement industry.

Congressman Tom DeLay


“While DeLay says he wants Houstonians to breathe clean air,he has relentlessly worked to excuse industries from anyrequirement that they limit the poison they put in the air. Inpublic he pretends to support clean-air efforts, but works theback channels of the Capitol to thwart them.”

Houston Chronicle Editorial, 9/22/02


DeLay $166,650 $92,550 $65,469 $31,000 $19,000 $9,250 Avg House Member

$29,661 $31,494 $11,417 $10,561 $8,306 $6,164

Auto Manufact-urers

Steel Production


Mining

Top Contributors, Energy and Manufacturing2000/2002 Election Cycle - Rep. Tom DeLay

Contributor AmountEnron $160,900 El Paso Corp $150,000 Reliant Energy $122,000 Koch Industries $73,500 First Energy Corp $72,000 International Paper $28,999 Dannenbaum Engineering Corp. $27,000 ChevronTexaco $26,250 Florida Power & Light $26,000 Westar Energy $25,300 Puget Sound Energy $25,000 Beecherl Investments $25,000 Belmont Oil & Gas Corp. $25,000 Waste Management Service Center $25,000 American Trucking Assns $24,499 Maxxam Inc $20,000 Boich Companies $20,000 Southern Co $15,500 DaimlerChrysler $15,500 Waste Management Inc $15,000 General Motors $15,000 Lyondell Chemical $14,000 BASF Corp $13,000 Vulcan Corporation $13,000 TXU $13,000 General Electric $12,000 TXI $12,000 Dynegy $12,000 Exxon Mobil $11,000 Chemical Co. $10,000 National Mining Association $10,000 Valero Energy Corp. $10,000 Shell Oil $10,000




Dirty Air Record of Representative Tom DeLay (R-TX),House Majority Leader






Coal-burning electric power industry, coal miningindustry, concrete and cement industry, oilindustry, pulp and paper industry, chemicalindustry, auto industry, National Association ofManufacturers.







Introduced series of bills to repeal key provisions of Clean Air Act, including:H.R. 473, to repeal provisions dealing with toxicair emissions,

Oil and chemical industries

H.R. 474, to repeal provisions dealing with acidrain.

Coal mining industry

H.R. 475, to repeal provisions dealing withstratospheric ozone protection.

Chemical industry

H.R. 476, to repeal future emission standards formotor vehicles.

Big three car companies.

H.R. 477, to permit emission credits for fleetturnover.

Big three car companies.

H.R. 478, to prohibit the federal government fromrequiring trip reduction

Oil industry

H.R. 479, to repeal the entire Clean Air ActAmendments of 1990.

Oil industry, electric power industry, coal miningindustry, chemical industry, pulp and paperindustry, big three car companies.

H.R. 480, to repeal mandatory motor vehicleinspection and maintenance programs.

Right-wing talk-radio agitators.

Senator James Inhofe

“An extremist, a dangerous idiot, Mr. Pollution, Gunga Din,Attila the Hun and Villain of the Year.”

Senator Inhofe reviewing critic’s labels for him before the U.S.Chamber of Commerce as reported by

USA Today 2/16/03“Gestapo bureaucracy” –Inhofe describing the EPA, asreported in the Atlanta Constitution, July 25, 1997.

Top Contributors, Energy and Manufacturing2000/2002 Election Cycle - Sen. James Inhofe

Contributor AmountKoch Industries $19,250 American Coal Co $16,750 Exelon Corp $14,000 Ohio Valley Coal Co $12,000 Nuclear Energy Institute $12,000 National Propane Gas Assn $11,898 Southern Co $11,000 El Paso Corp $11,000 Williams Companies $10,250 Valero Energy Corp $10,000 Devron Energy $10,000 Anadarko Petroleum $9,500 Conoco $9,250 Kerr-Mcgee $9,000 Ford Motor Co $8,500 ChevronTexaco $8,000 American Trucking Assns $8,000 Edison Electric Institute $7,669 Constellation Energy $7,500 Entergy $7,000 American Concrete Pavement $6,972 Lyondell Chemical $6,500 Petroleum Marketers Assn. of America $6,500


Inhofe $273,006 $167,463 $36,560 $60,350 $13,500 $9,850 Average Senator

$62,497 $57,422 $22,623 $32,115 $15,195 $9,683

Auto Manufact-urers

Steel Production


Mining





Dirty Air Record of Senator James Inhofe (R-OK),Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works


Led Senate floor opposition to and voted againstamendment by Senator John Edwards (D-NC)which would have blocked EPA’s changes tonew source review pending a study. - January22, 2003.

Coal-burning electric power industry, coal miningindustry, concrete and cement industry, oilindustry, pulp and paper industry, chemicalindustry, National Association of Manufacturers.




Voted in the Senate Environment and PublicWorks Committee against S. 556, the CleanPower Act sponsored by Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT). June 27, 2002.

Coal-burning electric power industry, coal miningindustry, National Association of Manufacturers

Voted to sidetrack tougher fuel economystandards sought by Senators John Kerry (D-MA)and John McCain (R-AZ) and to substitute astudy by the Department of Transportation.March 13, 2002.


Voted to block future increases in fuel economyfor pickup trucks. March 13, 2002


Voted to kill an amendment by Senator ThomasCarper (D-DE) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) thatwould have required the Department ofTransportation to reduce oil consumption of carsand light trucks. April 25, 2002.



Co-sponsored S. 2362, which would haverequired EPA to use a cost-benefit test whensetting national air quality standards. (Primarysponsor was Senator George Voinovich, R-OH.The only other co-sponsors were Landrieu andBreaux.)

Oil industry, coal mining industry, electric powerindustry, National Association of Manufacturers.

Co-sponsored S. 1053, which would haveoverturned a court ruling that said EPA hadimproperly permitted highway building thatinterfered with state air quality cleanup plans.



Voted against a “sense of the Senate” resolution,sponsored by Senators Slade Gorton (R-WA),Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Richard Bryan (D-NV), which said it was time to end a freeze onfuel economy standards. September 15, 1999.


Dirty Air Record of Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), continued

1999, continuedCo-sponsored S. 495, which would haverepealed highway sanctions under the Clean AirAct for states that fail to undertake appropriatecleanup plans. Sanctions are a criticalenforcement tool.



Congressman W.J. Billy Tauzin

"Have we walked through the looking glass with Alice? Havewe now entered Wonderland?"

June 21, 2000 on the floor of the House of Representatives,

making the assertion that it would cost too much to tell Americans ifthey lived in areas with dirty air.

Top Contributors, Energy and Manufacturing2000/2002 Election Cycle - Rep. Billy Tauzin

Contributor AmountSouthern Co $37,000 Reliant Energy $28,500 El Paso Corp $27,000 Entergy $25,000 Dominion $23,352 Koch Industries $22,000 Duke Energy $18,500 Dynegy $18,250 Florida Power & Light $16,000 Boich Companies $15,000 Valero Energy Corp $13,500 Exelon Corp $13,000 General Electric $12,000 ChevronTexaco $10,500 DaimlerChrysler $10,500 American Electric Power $10,000 Waste Management Inc $10,000 Lyondell Chemical $9,000 Allegheny Energy Inc $9,000 General Motors $9,000 Cinergy Corp $7,500 Occidental $7,500 Shell Oil $7,500 Ford Motor Company $7,500 Exxon Mobil $7,000 National Propane Gas Assn $7,000 Dow Chemical $6,500 Marathon Oil Company $6,500 First Energy Corp $6,500 Edison Electric Institute $6,474


Tauzin $198,384 $194,590 $60,791 $32,545 $17,500 $2,500 Avg House Member

$29,661 $31,494 $11,417 $10,561 $8,306 $6,164

Auto Manufact-urers

Steel Production


Mining




Dirty Air Record of Representative Billy Tauzin (R-TX),Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce





At the request of the Bush Administration, co-sponsored H.R. 5266, which would repeal manykey elements of the Clean Air Act and replacethem with an industry-friendly cap-and-tradesystem.

Electric power industry, coal mining industry














Electric power industry, coal mining industry

Senator John Cornyn

"They want a litigation-oriented, government-mandated approach, but President Bush prefersmarket-based incentives..." [said CornynSpokesman Dave Beckwith, announcing that theSenator would refuse to sign a clean-air pledge.]

- Fort Worth Star-Telegram, June 20, 2002,


Top Contributors, Energy and Manufacturing2000/2002 Election Cycle - Sen. John Cornyn

Contributor AmountEl Paso Corp $28,000 TXU $22,150 Waste Management Inc $18,750 Occidental $13,500 Anadarko Petroleum $12,500 Valero Energy Corp $12,000 Dow Chemical $10,700 American Energy Corp $10,400 American Coal Co $10,250 Halliburton Co $10,000 International Paper $10,000 Dynegy $9,000 Ohio Valley Coal Co $8,350 Entergy $8,000 Southern Co $8,000 Koch Industries $7,250 Duke Energy $7,000 Midland Oil & Gas $7,000 Lyondell Chemical $7,000 TXI $7,000


Cornyn $467,072 $97,860 $73,360 $60,850 $12,000 $26,800 Average Senator (2002)

$29,181 $31,814 $9,667 $17,564 $6,245 $4,661


Mining Auto Manufact-urers

Steel Production




Dirty Air Record of Representative John Cornyn (R-TX),member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works


Voted against amendment by Senator JohnEdwards (D-NC), which would have blockedEPA’s changes to new source review pending astudy. January 22, 2003.

Coal-burning electric power industry, coal miningindustry, oil industry, pulp and paper industry,chemical industry, National Association ofManufacturers.

Congressman Ralph Hall

"By a narrow vote, the House Energy and Commercesubcommittee on Health and the Environment last week adoptedthe [Ralph] Hall-[Jack] Fields amendment, which relaxes airquality standards required in the most polluted areas - includingHouston...The Hall-Fields amendment was considered a bigvictory for gasoline manufacturers."

--Houston Chronicle October 17, 1989


Top Contributors, Energy and Manufacturing2000/2002 Election Cycle - Rep. Ralph Hall

Contributor AmountTXU $33,458 Reliant Energy $12,000 American Electric Power $10,000 El Paso Corp $9,000 Bodin Concrete Co $9,000 Exelon Corp $9,000 Entergy $8,014 Exxon Mobil $7,000 Southern Co $6,500 Edison International $5,500 Progress Energy $5,000 General Electric $5,000 PACCAR Inc $5,000 ChevronTexaco $5,000


Hall $89,402 $155,235 $21,000 $6,500 $3,500 $3,000 Avg House Member

$29,661 $31,494 $11,417 $10,561 $8,306 $6,164

Auto Manufact-urers

Steel Production


Mining




Dirty Air Record of Representative Ralph Hall (D-TX),member of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee

on Energy and Air Quality


















Co-sponsored H.R. 1984, which would haverepealed EPA’s tougher new air qualitystandards for smog and soot.

Coal-burning electric power industry, coal miningindustry, concrete and cement industry, oilindustry, pulp and paper industry, chemicalindustry, auto industry, trucking industry, NationalAssociation of Manufacturers.



Brief Backgrounds on the Sooty Six

Representative Joe BartonChairman, House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air QualityCongressman Joe Barton, the Dallas/Ft. Worth area of Texas, was first elected in 1984 andis generally considered one of Congress’ most conservative politicians. Due to his anti-environment comments and actions, environmentalists and the Dallas Morning News haveanointed him nicknames including the “Darth Vader of Clean Air” and Smokey Joe.

Smokey Joe’s relationship with polluters goes back to his school days. Barton attendedTexas A&M University on a scholarship from Box-Crow, now Holcim Cement. Whilemany adults outgrow their college friends his relationship with the cement industry hasobviously strengthened. The cement industry has continued to give, providing Barton inessence life-long support. Last election cycle the cement industry gave Barton $45,250.

Cement kilns are a big source of dangerous toxic and smog-forming pollution. They burnhazardous waste as a fuel source, including waste from refineries and chemical plants. Thischeap and dirty disposal system results in high levels of toxic air pollution and smog.Several of these plants are in Ellis County where Joe Barton is from. For years SmokeyJoe has gone out of his way to shield cement kilns from the clean up requirements imposedon Dallas/Ft. Worth, which is now in serious non-attainment for ozone.

Even though Ellis County is just south of the Dallas/Ft. Worth area the county has been leftout of clean up plans. Ellis County is home the largest concentration of industrialemissions in the region and has violated the one-hour ozone standard. Joe Barton’sinfluence has been clear here: state regulators are reluctant to saddle the cement industrywith emissions restrictions for fear of stirring up Barton’s ire.

On February 20th of this year, clean air advocates petitioned the EPA to include EllisCounty in the clean up requirements. In response, Smokey Joe stated that petitioners were“misguided and ill-informed” and promised to resolve controversy over the illegalextension of clean air through a “legislative fix” that would relieve the clean up pressures.

In town hall meetings and public forums Smokey Joe has been critical of key air qualityregulations including New Source Review, a cornerstone of the Clean Air Act, whichrequires aging industrial facilities to get cleaner over time. He has promoted swappingenforcement of current laws in return for a national cap and trade system.

Before the August 2002 recess, Representatives Barton and Tauzin introduced the ClearSkies Act, a bill that if passed, will significantly weaken clean air protections for millionsof Americans. Barton also strongly opposes mandatory limits on carbon dioxideemissions, the primary ingredient in global warming.

Smokey Joe stated that before a meeting before Houston oil and energy executives “Therewill never be a bill come out of any committee or subcommittee that I chair as long as I amin the Congress that has CO2 as a pollutant. End point, period, exclamation point! It ain’tgoin’ to happen. And if we need to raise the temperature a little bit here in Houston than

so be it-but we’ll do it because of free will not because government tells us we have to”(June 4, 2001; BBC, “Toxic Texan.”)

Representative Tom DeLayHouse Majority LeaderTom DeLay, known as “the hammer” for his ability toforce his Republican colleagues to follow his lead, hasrecently been elevated to the number two position inthe House of Representatives. No greater foe of cleanair and public health has ever held such a high office inthe House of Representatives. Delay has lead not onlyefforts to weaken the Clean Air Act, but has authoredlegislation that would repeal entire sections of theClean Air Act. As part of the Republican “Contract forAmerica,” Delay authored legislation to repealprotections against toxic pollution, acid rain, smog, andcommon-sense initiatives to reduce pollution fromautomobiles such as trip reductions and vehicleinspections. DeLay has also voted to gag the EPA’s ability to work on global warming andprevent cleanup of our national parks.

DeLay sponsored town hall meetings in Houston to promote the House Energy Bill in2001, and has promised, as majority leader, to pass a new energy bill by this summer. The2001 Energy Bill was contained over $30 billion in subsidies to the energy industry,heavily favoring traditional sources such as oil and gas, coal and nuclear power.

DeLay’s work against clean air is frighteningly ironic given that his home town ofHouston, Texas is consistently among the worst air polluted places in the country, in recentyears battling with Los Angeles for the title of absolute worst ozone problems.

The League of Conservation Voters has given Tom DeLay a lifetime score (average scorefor all years in office) of only 8%. In other words, Tom DeLay votes against theenvironment 92% of the time, on average.

A story from the Houston Press provides a sense of how differently Tom DeLay thinksabout the world around him. In a January 1999 article, the Houston Press reported thatDeLay explained to the New Orleans media that that he and Dan Quayle “were victims ofan unusual phenomenon back in the days of the undeclared southeast Asian war. So manyminority youths had volunteered for the well-paying military positions to escape povertyand the ghetto that there was literally no room left for patriotic folks like himself.”DeLay’s outlandish and self-serving remarks prompted one TV reporter to ask “Who wasthat idiot?”

The Sept./Oct. '96 Mother Jones article on Tom DeLay entitled "Sin of Emissions",provides another view of DeLay. "Tom DeLay gained notoriety for openly invitingindustry lobbyists to help rewrite environmental regulations...House Majority Whip TomDeLay (R-Tex.) is nobody's fool. Sometimes he just goes!out of his way to sound like one.!

Image fromwww.foeaction.org/delaywatch.html

The insecticide DDT? According to DeLay, it's perfectly safe. The bald eagle? Neverapproached extinction.! Acid rain?! All you gotta do is pour a little lime in a few lakes.!Global warming? A myth and a fraud. "The Nobel appeasement prize,"! DeLay sneeredwhen scientists researching ozone depletion won the award last year.! The EnvironmentalProtection Agency? "The Gestapo of government," he fumes...

DeLay's chief passion is the wholesale deregulation of American business.! More than anyother politician, DeLay is responsible for the House's all-out assault on 25 years ofbipartisan! environmental regulation.! In the past two years, he has tried to repeal the CleanAir Act, fought to cut the EPA's budget a third, and invited corporate lobbyists andcontributors to pen legislation exempting their industries from! environmental laws."

Senator James InhofeChairman, Senate Environment and Public Works CommitteeSenator James Inhofe (R-OK) is blunt-spoken and brutally honest about his conservativephilosophy in a Senate that generally prides itself on its ability to bridge political divides.

He clashed once with the late Minnesota Democratic Senator Paul Wellstone, remarking“There probably are not two members of the U.S. Senate who are further apartphilosophically than the senior senator from Minnesota and I. I would probably believehim to be an extreme left-wing radical, and he believes me to be an extreme right-wingradical conservative. And I think maybe we are both right.”

Inhofe was a fierce critic of the Clinton Administration, once likening EPA AdministratorCarol Browner to “Tokyo Rose.” In 1997, he quietly slipped through an amendment onthe Senate floor that would have blocked new air quality standards for smog and soot. Hisaction – taken in a virtually empty chamber – angered Democrats and embarrassed fellowRepublicans because Inhofe had not followed the tradition of informing Democrats of hisintentions. Then-Majority Leader Trent Lott reversed the action the next day.

Inhofe was first elected to the Senate in 1994 after four terms in the House ofRepresentatives. (His 1988 campaign for reelection became complicated when he sued hisbrother over a stock sale involving the family business.)

Inhofe has repeatedly said he wants to amend the Clean Air Act to require “sound science”(an industry code phrase which means delay or weaken clean air safeguards) and to subjectnational air quality standards to a cost-benefit test (in other words, to base standards not onthe best science, but on industry estimates of costs).

Most recently, Inhofe has been considering an industry led effort to weaken the alreadysoft mercury provisions of Bush’s Clear Skies Bill. According to his office, Inhofe is“analyzing” a proposal to bolster the use of lignite and sub-bituminous coal – which emitmore mercury per unit of energy produced. In addition, another proposal would increasethe mercury emissions credits of utilities not involved in the EPA’s eastern state NOxclean up plan (NOx SIP Call). As a sweetener, Oklahoma would be designated a westernstate for purposes of the bill so that it would be subject to the weaker standards.

Representative W.J. Billy TauzinChairman, House Energy and Commerce CommitteeRep. Billy Tauzin (R-LA) was first elected to Congress as a Democrat in 1980. Since then,he has increasingly taken a deregulatory approach to business. But his career has beenmarked by his desire to be a “player,” and he loves to use his zest for deal making to enactlegislation.

A founding member of the conservative “Blue Dog” coalition of House Democrats in1995, he switched to the GOP seven months after Republicans took control of Congress –but only after he was promised he could keep the seniority he had accrued as a Democraton the Energy and Commerce Committee.

In 2001, he won the chairmanship of the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee aftera fierce rivalry with Rep. Michael Oxley (R-OH), a lifelong Republican with comparableseniority. During the 2000 Republican convention in Philadelphia, Tauzin and Oxley helddueling lavish parties bankrolled by many of the companies regulated by the committee.

A shrewd tactician with what the Washington Post called a “flamboyant, Big Easy style,”Tauzin moved quickly to shepherd energy legislation through the 107th Congress.

His environment record is consistent – consistently bad. The League of ConservationVoters gave him a zero percent rating for the 107th Congress.

Senator John CornynMember, Senate Environment and Public Works CommitteeSen. John Cornyn (R-TX) may be President Bush’s favorite senator. The President andmembers of his cabinet made numerous campaign appearances for the former Texas stateattorney general who was elected to the Senate last November.

A former judge, Cornyn was elected Texas’ attorney general in 1997. He was the firstRepublican elected to that position since Reconstruction.

Since coming to the Senate, Cornyn has cast only one significant vote on clean air – sidingwith the Bush Administration in opposition to an amendment by Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) that would have halted the Administration’s efforts to weaken pollution controls onsmokestack industries that increase their emissions.

But Cornyn’s bad record is older than his tenure as Senator. During his campaign Cornynwould not pledge to oppose rollback of the Clean Air Act or protect national parks frompollution. He stated that he would support the Administration’s air pollution plan, eventhough the plan would increase pollution in Cornyn’s home state of Texas.

Cornyn has not been above using environmental issues to political advantage. During lastyear’s Senate campaign, he alleged that his Democratic rival, former Dallas Mayor RonKirk, once tried to help site a hazardous waste plant in a minority neighborhood. The Kirkcampaign reported that Cornyn, during his successful race for attorney general, accepted$114,000 in campaign contributions from companies seeking to import out-of-state waste

for disposal in Texas and had later issued a legal opinion favoring some of thosecompanies.

Representative Ralph HallMember, House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air QualityFirst elected in 1981 Congressman Ralph Hall (Democrat) from Rockwall, Texas serves asthe Ranking Democrat on the full Committee on Science and is a senior member of theEnergy and Commerce Committee, where he serves on the Subcommittee on Energy andAir Quality, and the Subcommittee on Health.

One of a handful of “Blue Dog” conservative Democrats actively pushing so called “CleanCoal” technology, right wing groups including the Young Conservatives of Texas haveendorsed Hall.

To his credit, Hall helped pass the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments including calling forthe reformulated gasoline amendment. However, much of his record is tarred by votes thatshow preference for more oil and gas development over energy conservation measures.

In a heated debate over the House Energy Bill passed in 2001, Hall argued that oppositionto drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge amounted to increasing revenues for IraqiPresident Saddam Hussein, saying "I'd drill at Hollywood and Vine to keep my kids out ofbody bags."

Hall also stated “The ANWR provision is particularly important – because I think it holdsgreat promise for energy supplies. We are proposing to develop less than one percent of therefuge, and I think experience has shown that this can occur without danger or threat to thisarea.” !In regards to opening up federal lands for drilling Hall stated “We can no longerafford the luxury of effectively fencing off some of our federal lands with the greatestpotential for oil and gas development. !We need to open them up to exploration anddevelopment under strict rules that reduce to the absolute minimum the environmentalimpacts of that production. The oil industry has proven that it is willing and able to extractoil and gas and leave almost no footprints – we should give them the opportunity topractice what they’ve learned on non-federal lands in Texas and the other producingstates.”

Who Suffers from Dirty Air? Portrait of a Pollution Victim

In June of 2001 and April of 2002, Billy Tauzin's constituents - those that live within stepsof petrochemical plants - visited his office in Washington, D.C. Their request of theirrepresentative was simple: they asked that he come to their communities to learn abouttheir lives and see for himself the havoc caused by rampant pollution and the dangerousproximity of petrochemical plants.

Billy Tauzin's constituents believed - naively, as it turns out - that their representativewould want to understand their situation so that he might truly represent their interests.

Nearly two years after the initial request, Billy Tauzin has still failed to take a tour of thecommunities. Although his aides in Washington smiled and behaved as if they were glad tosee constituents, the sad result has been only lip service to those people that Billy Tauzin issupposed to represent.

But if Billy Tauzin isn't meeting with his constituents, to whom is he listening? Anexamination of his fleeting interaction with the Norco community provides some clues.

Shonda Lee lives in New Sarpy, Louisiana, and theheart of Billy Tauzin's district. Shonda lives only stepsaway from the Orion Refinery. This is her story:

"It's at night when we're sleeping - the rumbling, thenoise [from the refinery]. Especially at two or three inthe morning, when we're really trying to sleep to get upfor work the next day.

We lose a lot of sleep. Lots of sleep. My [13 year old]daughter wakes up in the middle of the night becauseshe's afraid. She's very fearful due to the big explosionthat just happened. She even had a nightmare the othernight. "Mama," [she said] "I dreamed that those places[the refineries] just blew up and our house, our housewas blown down." Her sleeping pattern is irregular now,and that's bad on school.

It's really breaking our hearts. It has taken a toll healthwise, I truly believe. The smell! Yesterday was sodisgusting, yesterday I was in the car and the smell wasso awful, we were sick to our stomachs. We left NewSarpy and felt much better. We got back here and wewere sick again. This is no lie, sometimes the smell isso bad I hang out of my door and throw up."

Shonda LeeNew Sarpy, La

“Sometimes thesmell is so bad Ihang out of my

door and throw up”

Norco, Louisiana is similar to New Sarpy and much of Billy Tauzin's district. As in NewSarpy, the people live mere steps away from petrochemical plants. As in New Sarpy, thepeople have never heard from Billy Tauzin about their struggle, despite their requests.

The Concerned Citizens of Norco is an organization that has been fighting Shell Oil andChemical Company for nearly 15 years. The Diamond neighborhood of Norco sitssandwiched between the Shell chemical plant and an oil refinery. Since the early 1970's,Shell has been buying property in Diamond at prices that do not enable families topurchase comparable homes elsewhere. The contention by the neighborhood is that Shelltakes advantage of the plummeting property values - caused by their own pollution - toswoop in and buy land from people too scared to continue living next to a petrochemicalgiant.

Residents of the Diamond neighborhood were among those that visited RepresentativeTauzin's office in Washington, D.C. to ask for assistance. No response ever came. Phonecalls were not returned and the Concerned Citizens of Norco were left to their own devicesin facing the petrochemical giant.

No thanks to Tauzin, the Concerned Citizens of Norco were eventually successful. On June7, 2002 they reached a hard fought agreement with Shell to be relocated. That very nightone of the community's partners, a non-profit organization called the Louisiana BucketBrigade, received a phone call from Billy Tauzin's office. The aide said that he knew that adeal was being offered by Shell, and that if the citizens had any problems with it theyshould let Billy Tauzin know so he could help.

For fifteen years during the Concerned Citizens' struggle, Representative Tauzin wasnowhere in sight. Offering assistance on the day of victory was more lip service from arepresentative sorely out of touch. It is reasonable to conclude that Billy Tauzin wastalking with Shell, that the lobbyists and money handlers from Shell and other specialinterests informed him of the deal and their point of view, tying up his time and preventinghim from even visiting the communities in his district.

Our Clean Air and Climate are at StakeWith their positions on key committees, the Sooty Six are ideally positioned to repay theircontributors with valuable legislation. Top environmental issues before Congress includereducing power plant pollution, rolling back the Clean Air Act, and addressing globalwarming. Most of the proposals discussed below originated with the Bush Administration.The Sooty Six are already taking an active role to propel the Bush Administration’s dirtypolicies forward.

1. Power Plants: (Source: Natural Resources Defense Council)The Bush administration’s power plant pollution bill (H.R.5266 and S.2815 - called “ClearSkies” by the administration and introduced by Senator Inhofe and Representative Bartonon February 27, 2003) proposes only weak, delayed, and incomplete limits for power plantair pollution while it repeals and weakens vital clean air protections in the current CleanAir Act.

The President’s bill increases air pollution:An internal U.S. EPA analysis made public last year shows that faithfullyimplemented, the current Clean Air Act would deliver greater pollution reductionssooner than those proposed by the Bush bill. The Bush bill delays emission reductionsby up to a decade compared with faithful implementation of the existing Clean Air Actor enacting the Clean Power Act (S.556).

The administration plan would allow 50 percent more sulfur emissions (causing acidrain and fine particle – soot – pollution), millions more tons of smog-forming nitrogenoxides, and three times more toxic mercury emissions.

The administration bill would cause 12,000 more premature deaths each year in thedecade from 2008 to 2018, compared with effective enforcement of current law andstronger pending bills (Clean Power Act, S.556 and Clean Smokestacks Act,H.R.1256). It would result in additional health damages costing nearly $115 billion peryear over that decade.

2. Clean Air Act – New Source ReviewPresident Bush’s power plant pollution bill also sweeps away many existing Clean Air Actpublic health protections. Another distinct effort to weaken the Clean Air Act is EPA’srecent move to implement rules that substantially re-interpret key sections of the NewSource Review portion of the Clean Air Act.

The President’s bill attacks the Clean Air Act (Source: Clear The Air)The Bush Administration’s air pollution plan repeals and weakens key provisions ofthe Clean Air Act. The Administration plan rolls back the existing law’s public healthsafeguards to protect local air quality, reduce toxic mercury threats, curb pollution fromupwind to downwind states, and restore visibility in our national parks (see box).

Number of Facilities Allowed to Emit More Air Pollution

Under EPA's Weakening of New Source Review Rules

1982 313

AK256

280

1288

131 77

150

132

63

59

152

144 196

50

200

129

370

446

1057

336

294

465

610

734 743 732

349

322

318

495 568

208314

422

299

375

412

810

71

RI 53CT 99NJ 391DE 87MD 167DC 34

VT 23NH 56

206

PR 54VI 7

60

HI 125

Total of major facilities covered by new source review (NSR) program nationwide, including Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands: 17,714. Source:http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/permits/maps/permtbl.html (Title V facilities as of September 30, 2002). “Major sources” of air pollution are subject to the NSR and Title Vpermitting programs. Adjustments were made from the EPA Title V chart to exclude non-major sources from this NSR coverage map (e.g., Florida), following conversations with stateofficials.

New Source Review – the Noxious, Sooty Rollback of the Heart and Lungs of ournation’s Clean Air ActOn Friday, November 22, 2002, EPA Administrator Christie Whitman formallyinitiated the Clean Air Act rollback when she signed a package of final rules alteringinterpretation of “New Source Review” program. The Bush Administration’s rulechanges essentially give permission to major energy corporations to increase airpollution dramatically. With the signing, a first set of rollbacks became law while evenmore drastic “proposed rules” moved one step closer to becoming law.

On January 22, 2003, Senators Cornyn and Inhofe voted against an amendment bySenator John Edwards (D-NC) that would have blocked implementation of these finalrules until the National Academy of Sciences could do an assessment of their impacton public health.

New Source Review (NSR) is a core Clean Air Act program. NSR requires theinstallation of modern pollution controls when older plants expand their options. Theprogram applies to any major source required to have a permit under the 1977 revisionsto the Clean Air Act. It applies to more than 17,000 industrial plants like incinerators,steel mills, and paper plants and has prevented millions of tons of pollution.

Changes even more radical than those of November 22nd are being implemented by theAdministration. The next round includes allowing power plants to make virtually anychange to their facilities — even ones that significantly increase pollution — withouthaving to install new pollution controls. These changes would effectively kill the NewSource Review program for existing power plants.

How the Bush Administration’s Power Plant Pollution BillSmokes the Clean Air Act

• Current Clean Air Act: States must clean up air pollution and provide cleaner air to most citizensby 2010.

Administration Plan: Current deadlines are repealed, allowing violations of soot and smog healthstandards to continue until 2018. The Bush Administration plan allows for a 36% increase in thesmog-forming pollution that cause asthma attacks, and a 50% increase in the soot-forming pollutionthat can cause death. Some areas are never cleaned up.

• Current Clean Air Act: Each power plant must cut mercury emissions and other air toxics by asmuch as 90 percent by 2008, and then further limit any unacceptable risks that remain. Power plantsare the largest uncontrolled source of mercury, which threatens the health of children, expectantmothers, and other vulnerable populations.

Administration plan: Eliminates current health protections, allowing three times more mercurypollution, and substitutes a weak program with uncertain interim reductions that is not fullyimplemented until 2018.

• Current Clean Air Act: Requires new power plants to install state-of-the-art pollution controls, andrequires older “grandfathered” plants to install modern pollution controls when rebuilt or expandedin ways that increase their pollution output. In areas with dirty air, new or expanded plants mustoffset their pollution increases.

Administration plan: Repeals these current air quality safeguards.

• Current Clean Air Act: When power plants in upwind states cause violations of air pollution healthstandards in downwind states, the downwind states can force those plants to cut their pollution.

Administration plan: Effectively repeals this “state rights” provision. The Bush plan prohibitsdownwind states from pursuing any pollution reductions from power plants in upwind states before2012. After 2012 the standard of proof to show an upwind contribution to downwind pollution is sogreat that relief may never be granted.

• Current Clean Air Act: Existing power plants must install modern pollution control equipment tocurb the haze they cause in national parks and wilderness areas.

Administration plan: Repeals the cleanup requirement and fails to deliver cleaner air to our parks.

Source: Clear the Air

How the Bush Administration’s New Source Review RulesRoll Back the Clean Air Act

• Plantwide Applicability Limit (PAL)Allows factories such as power plants, refineries and chemical facilities to avoid modernemission control requirements by placing a cap on overall facility emissions based on theirmost polluting 24-month period in the last decade. Even allows the emissions cap to growover time, resulting in increasing pollution.

PROBLEM: Establishes perpetual grandfathering of excessive emissions at old dirty units,and would allow increases in pollutants from some units above current levels.

• Clean Unit LoopholeAllows sources that install something comparable to “Best Available Control Technology” toescape New Source Review for 10-15 years, even if the source makes major changes thatsignificantly increase pollution emissions. Equipment installed as long as 15 years in the pastcan be the basis for an exemption from New Source Review in the future.

PROBLEM: Clean up technology is improving rapidly and standards for "best availablecontrol" continually tighten as a result. But this provision would essentially freeze progressfor more than a decade and create, in effect, a new "grandfathering" status.

• Changes in How to Determine Whether an Emission Increase has OccurredAs a result of this rule, non-utility sources of pollution may now use a more lenient method ofcalculating whether an emission increase has occurred as a result of a major modification.The new test is the same as that used for utilities. Also, allows emissions to rise, and escapeNew Source Review, so long as the source attributes the rise to “market demand.”

PROBLEM: The new rule will allow sources to pick and choose the "baseline" that increasesare measured from as long ago as ten years. Thus, neighbors of a facility that has long hadlower emissions for a decade could suddenly be faced with large emissions increases, with nolegal recourse.

• Pollution Control Exemption:EPA will allow a source to avoid cleaning up to modern standards for all pollutants if thesource has installed pollution controls for only one pollutant.

PROBLEM: This means that a source that puts on controls to clean up N0x emissions canmake changes that increase S02, particulate matter, or benzene without modernizing controlsfor those pollutants.

3. Global WarmingThe most dramatic and closest battle over US global warming policy is also taking place inthe power plant arena. Again, the Bush power plant pollution bill is up against the “CleanPower Act” by Senator James Jeffords.

On February 12, 2003, Energy Daily reported that Senator Inhofe thought the full Senatemight vote to put mandatory carbon dioxide limits into the Bush bill. In response, EnergyDaily quotes Inhofe, “I would make every effort on the floor to get CO2 taken out, but ifwe're not successful, then we'd start working in the conference committee to get it out ofthe bill.”

The Bush Administration’s power plant pollution plan ignores global warming:Power plants are the largest source of U.S. global warming pollution, responsible for 40percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. The Bush plan does nothing to reduce powerplants’ contribution to global warming. The Administration plan will allow anothergeneration of investments in power plants with excessive carbon dioxide emissions –dramatically increasing future costs for utilities and their customers when the inevitableneed to curb these emissions is finally recognized.

The Bush Administration’s “Climate VISION” proposal fails to deliver:The Bush Administration has also proposed a voluntary program to address globalwarming. The program relies on industry associations to set voluntary goals andparameters for their members to meet an overall target of an 18% cut in carbon dioxide“emissions intensity”. Emissions intensity means how much carbon dioxide is emitted foreach unit of GDP.

Many choose to overlook the fact that even if emissions intensity falls, overall emissionsgo up – because the US economy is expanding and the proposed reduction would not beaggressive enough to make up for the growth that occurs. Additionally, emissions intensityin the US has been falling for years at about the same rate that the Bush administration isproposing we set voluntary goals to achieve.

The following chart shows how much emissions will increase by 2012 under the Bush“Climate VISION” plan.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Emissions Intensity, 1980-2012

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

CO2 Emissions(actual)

CO2 Emissions(projected)

CO2 Intensity(actual)

CO2 Intensity(projected)

President Bush'sGHG IntensityProposal

1305

Carbon Dioxide Emissions (MMTCE)

1355

1253

1438

15781624

1862

Emissions Intensity (MTCE/$1000 GDP)0.266

0.202

0.219

0.1910.171

0.1540.141

Source: National Environmental Trust

ConclusionWhile campaign contributions are rightfully a frequent topic for public interest groups toexamine, it is hard to imagine another case similar to the Sooty Six. Here we have fromthree highly polluted contiguous states a small group of Congressmen – a group whicharguably includes the Congressional representatives with the worst environmental recordspossible, each of whom raises far more money from air polluting industries than his fellowHouse or Senate members, and who in combination have a virtual deadlock over U.S. airquality and global warming policy for the foreseeable future.

Now more than ever, it is vital for the American public to understand who is exercising thegreatest control over the laws that shape the quality of the air we breathe. By extensionthey shape health impacts, how many cancer, reproductive or developmental toxins we willbe exposed to and whether or not giant industrial plants in neighborhoods will be allowedto expand without installing appropriate controls.

It is also these individuals who will shape the U.S. response, or lack thereof, to whatscientists increasingly agree is the greatest man-made threat to our future prosperity, healthand comfort we have yet devised, in the form of global warming.

In the hands of the Sooty Six – a few individuals with decidedly negative environmentalrecords, campaign coffers stuffed with polluter contributions and from states with thehighest toxic pollution in the land - rest decisions that will define for this and the nextgeneration how deadly our air is, how dirty our energy gets, and how hot our planetbecomes.

this report is the product of a joint effort by state and national … · 2011. 8. 3. ·...

Documents